 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
pamflute
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Tampa, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 24 |
| First Name: | Pam | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist to Presbyterian to United Methodist to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 21st, 2007 09:05 pm |
|
Hello, David, Rick or anyone else who cares to answer:
I am trying to get a handle on Calvin's view of the Eucharist. My husband and I are still attending a Presbyterian church while also going to RCIA. Every time we have communion the pastor makes it clear that the elements do not become the body and blood of Christ. He says that Christ is spiritually present and that we feed on Him in our hearts by faith. From what I have read, Calvin's view of the Eucharist seems quite confusing and it is still that way for me. I guess we are coming to a more Catholic understanding because every time he says this, it bothers me. It seems like just about every sacrament we have in the Presbyterian church is symbolic or doesn't mean what the Catholic church means and you wonder after awhile why we go through the trouble of doing all this meaningless ritual?
Anyone who has a good grasp on this subject and can explain it to me, I would greatly appreciate it.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 21st, 2007 09:31 pm |
|
pamflute wrote: I am trying to get a handle on Calvin's view of the Eucharist.
According the documents I read on this web site, the difference is basically this:
Catholics believe the bread and wine substantially change into the Body and Blood of Christ, although the appearance of bread and wine remain. We call this the Real Presence, and the process of transformation is called transubstantiation.
Luther believed that the Body and Blood of Christ joined with the bread and wine. Christ is substantially present along with the bread and wine. So the bread and wine do not change, but remain along with the Body and Blood of Christ. This type of belief in the Real Presence is called consubstantiation.
Calvin believed that the bread and wine remain bread and wine. Jesus is really and substantially present in the community of believers but the bread and wine remain just a symbol. Communion is a reenactment of the Last Supper with purely a symbolic meaning. The bread and wine are not transformed at all, so there is no particular name ascribe to it.
It seems like just about every sacrament we have in the Presbyterian church is symbolic or doesn't mean what the Catholic church means and you wonder after awhile why we go through the trouble of doing all this meaningless ritual?
As I understand it (and I do not claim to be an expert), basic Protestant belief is that the sacraments are purely symbolic. Anglican and Lutheran beliefs are different, or at least were originally.
As to asking why do a meaningless ritual, I can't answer that other than to say Jesus commanded it. We do not have meaningless rituals in the Catholic Church.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 21st, 2007 11:53 pm |
|
It seems like just about every sacrament we have in the Presbyterian church is symbolic or doesn’t mean what the Catholic church means and you wonder after awhile why we go through the trouble of doing all this meaningless ritual?
You know, Pam, I made this exact point elsewhere just a few hours ago with reference to the Baptists and their view of the sacraments (what they call “ordinances”).
Isn’t it amazing that these Protestant groups are the same ones who just a few years back were criticizing the Catholic Church for its “meaningless ritual”? Now people are discovering that it was the Protestants all along who had the self-proclaimed “meaningless ritual”: “It doesn’t really do anything, folks. We don’t believe that there is any reality to this ritual; it’s all a ‘symbol.’”
Rick has given you the dictionary definition of Calvin’s view of the sacraments as exactly this. Zwingli (chronologically the second of the “big three” 16th century Reformers) was even more adamant that it is the congregation’s memorial gathering that “makes Christ present,” not anything to do with the bread and wine, and that this presence resides somehow in the congregation, not in the Eucharistic elements, which in their turn are to be consumed in a “spirit of fellowship.” Kind of like giving birth to Christ through your belief in Santa Claus, don’t you think? I was raised Methodist. Their view of baptism is almost identical to the Catholic doctrine, but they proclaim Zwingli’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. I saw that as a split personality — realistic doctrine of baptism, symbolic doctrine of the Eucharist — and found the inconsistency hard to accept.
What is even more amazing is that these Protestant pastors are proudly proclaiming their non-belief to the congregation. One is tempted to ask: “This non-belief — this is faith? This is Christianity?”
No, what I believe is happening here is not so much a lack of faith but anti-Catholicism. These pastors are saying, “Catholics are the ones who believe the fable about the bread and wine actually becoming the body and blood of Christ. We are more enlightened. We do not believe that.” Yes indeed, it’s all “symbolic,” all “spiritual.” But what does that mean? Perhaps a well informed Protestant can explain it to me, because as a kid I took it to mean something like grown-up “make believe.”
Sorry, Pam. I’m afraid I can’t explain it either. It doesn’t make any sense at all.
David
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 234 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 12:56 pm |
|
pamflute -
Here is a link to the USCCB website, they've prepared a Q&A on the real Presence -
http://www.nccbuscc.org/dpp/realpresence.htm
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 234 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 01:16 pm |
|
pamflute -
P.S. In addition to the above, please see -
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
To quote from the last paragraph - "God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ."
The article has an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, which means it accurately conveys Catholic teaching.
God Bless.
|
|
|
AB
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 27th, 2007 06:31 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: But what does that mean? Perhaps a well informed Protestant can explain it to me, because as a kid I took it to mean something like grown-up “make believe.”
If I understand the Catholic position correctly, a Catholic who takes communion without the appropriate inner disposition commits a sacrilege, and the sacrament is not truly valid despite its correct outward form. This, I think, is what is at the heart of the Protestant perspective on sacraments. That is, the Reformers were concerned primarily with what happens within the person and saw the Catholic emphasis on transubstantiation (and the occasional [perceived?] misuse of the interdict) as distractions from whatever divine-human interaction was occuring within the Christian or within the church.
From the Protestant perspective, the emblems and actions may be symbolic, but through the grace of Christ, they provide the context for our encounter with God. In the conflicted nature of the 16th century, this led Protestants and Catholics to the ends of the continuum. Protestants believed that Catholics were concerned only with the outward aspects of the sacraments, making them "empty rites." Catholics believed that Protestants did not take the sacraments seriously. In the end, the perspectives we have about each other are probably all off the mark.
With 500 years invested in this dispute, it's difficult to bridge the gap, but I think mutual understanding can probably be best attained through the concept of "inner disposition." It doesn't resolve all the disagreements, but it is the beginning point for mutual understanding.
AB
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28th, 2007 01:39 am |
|
This is an interesting insight, AB, and I see a certain validity in it.
I have often expressed a similar idea, but couched in different terms because it is seen through a different lens. It is that Catholicism deals with religious experience from an objective, or realist, point of view, while Protestantism makes its approach from a subjective point of view. You can see echoes of this in our current pope’s insistent criticism of subjectivism and its cousin, relativism — a topic that you have heard me expound on my own numerous times, since it was central to my own religious upbringing. My long-ago conversion to Catholicism was based on a rejection of subjectivism. My subsequent reading of authors such as Louis Bouyer and Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange has confirmed me in this opinion.
Yet, as you say, the concept of “inner disposition” is still important in a Catholic milieu. The one thing I might disagree with you on is the idea that a sacrament can become “not truly valid.” As I understand it, the sacraments remain valid, but the person committing sacrilege is nullifying their effect in himself by his duplicity, inwardly denying the grace he is offered while outwardly receiving it. So it is the sinful human soul that is not truly valid, not the divine sacrament. But this is a personal opinion; I have also heard it described as you say.
David
|
|
|
shawnbm
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Fort Lauderdale, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 35 |
| First Name: | Shawn | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Episcopalian (Anglo-Catholic) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28th, 2007 04:40 pm |
|
| These last two responses are fairly adequate to describe the different viewpoints. The only thing I think to add is that the Reformers may have stretched too far what they felt was necessary to do to effectuate a "reform" of poor and sinful practices on the part of men charged with administering the Sacraments. Everything Protestants say about the Sacraments could still be said, as it pertains to properly receiving the Lord during His Eucharist, without jumping to the conclusion (which most did and still do) the Sacraments are a nullity and are not necessary for the Christian. THAT is a Non-sequitur, in my view.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28th, 2007 05:02 pm |
|
Everything Protestants say about the Sacraments could still be said, as it pertains to properly receiving the Lord during His Eucharist, without jumping to the conclusion… [that] the Sacraments are a nullity and are not necessary for the Christian. THAT is a Non-sequitur, in my view.
Yes, Shawn. That was exactly my point.
|
|
|
pamflute
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Tampa, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 24 |
| First Name: | Pam | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist to Presbyterian to United Methodist to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 10:53 am |
|
| Thank you to all for your replies. I think I was most interested in Rick's comment that Presbyterians hold that communion is symbolic, since the pastor seems to imply that it is more than that. I don't see why they would believe this since Calvin expressly stated that he had regard for what the Church Fathers believed, but doesn't believe they are right on this most important doctrine? Why would he think that?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 12:01 pm |
|
pamflute wrote: Thank you to all for your replies. I think I was most interested in Rick's comment that Presbyterians hold that communion is symbolic, since the pastor seems to imply that it is more than that. I don't see why they would believe this since Calvin expressly stated that he had regard for what the Church Fathers believed, but doesn't believe they are right on this most important doctrine? Why would he think that?
In my opinion, you can look at the practices of various churches to see what they truly believe.
How is communion distributed? How are any remaining hosts/crackers and wine/grape juice treated? How are the vessels cleaned/purified?
Is the excess reserved, consumed, or discarded? Are the vessels purified, washed, or discarded?
Generally, most Protestant faiths believe that Christ is "specially present" in the congregation at communion time, but there is no additional respect paid to the species itself.
Here from the Wikipedia entry on Eucharist is the Calvinist view:
Calvinist Reformed: spiritual feeding, "pneumatic" presence
Many Reformed Christians, particularly those who follow John Calvin, hold that Christ's body and blood do not come down to inhabit the elements, but that "the Spirit truly unites things separated in space" (Calvin).
Following a phrase of Augustine, the Calvinist view is that "no one bears away from this Sacrament more than is gathered with the vessel of faith". "The flesh and blood of Christ are no less truly given to the unworthy than to God's elect believers", Calvin said; but those who partake by faith receive benefit from Christ, and the unbelieving are condemned by partaking. By faith (not a mere mental apprehension), and in the Holy Spirit, the partaker beholds God incarnate, and in the same sense touches him with hands, so that by eating and drinking of bread and wine Christ's actual presence penetrates to the heart of the believer more nearly than food swallowed with the mouth can enter in.
Calvin specifically rejected adoration of the Eucharistic bread and wine as "idolatry", however. Leftover elements may be disposed of without ceremony (or reused in later services); they are unchanged, and as such the meal directs attention toward Christ's bodily resurrection and return.
I tried to find an explanation from a Calvinist source, but all I could find is that Calvin rejected both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation as methods of explaining "Real Presence". Apparently Calvin rejected Real Presence entirely in favor of "special" presence in the congregation.
Most of the Protestant reformers, in my opinion, developed beliefs and then looked for evidence to back the conclusions they had already drawn. In the process, they ignored or "reinterpreted" scripture and the early Fathers to support their beliefs. Those who conduct independent investigations of the writings of the Fathers, like Alex Jones, end up Catholic.
Ask the pastor exactly what he believes and how that fits Calvin's teachings.
|
|
|
pamflute
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Tampa, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 24 |
| First Name: | Pam | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist to Presbyterian to United Methodist to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 01:18 pm |
|
Rick:
Thank you for your replies to my question. I guess I am having trouble seeing what the Reformers saw. They used some pretty harsh language to describe the Eucharist - idolatry, everyone who believes this goes to hell, etc. Was Calvin just so upset with the priests of his time that he couldn't see what the church really taught? I think I am a pretty intelligent person, but I can't hold a candle to an intellectual like Calvin. I read the Church Fathers and I see they believed in the Real Presence. It seems like a "no brainer" to me. I wasn't trying to come to this conclusion, I'm just basing it on what I read. I wasn't even looking for a doctrine of Eucharist - I was looking into what the early church did in regards to worship. I discovered that half of the worship service was gone from my church and I wondered why. You have to understand I wasn't looking for the Catholic Church - somehow the Catholic Church found me! I guess I just feel like if an intellectual giant like Calvin couldn't believe in the Real Presence, who I am to say that I'm right? Some of these Reformers really bother me because they go into incredible hairsplitting arguments and I could never come up with a satisfactory answer to why they did what they did. I know that seems like a small problem but church history has been one of my big problems with coming to accept the Catholic Church. I guess I had been taught a kind of a pure church theory all my life and this church has lots of sinners (and saints as well, but I never heard of them). If half of the Christian world can split from the Catholic Church because of purity issues, who I am to say they are wrong? These are some questions I still have as I face the ghosts in my own mind.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 01:38 pm |
|
pamflute wrote: If half of the Christian world can split from the Catholic Church because of purity issues, who I am to say they are wrong? These are some questions I still have as I face the ghosts in my own mind.
First of all, it was not "half of the Christian world". It was actually closer to 20%. Today the Catholic Church represents approximately 45% of the Christian world. The Protestants, Anglican, and other churches of the "Reformation" have grown to a slightly smaller percentage, and the Orthodox and Oriental Churches make up the difference.
At the time of the Reformation, nationalistic pressures almost forced entire nations to join Reformation churches. Germany was Lutheran, England was Anglican, etc. The Eastern European countries were primarily Orthodox (as was Russia). Catholic churches were largely outlawed. For most people, doctrine had nothing to do with it. They followed their monarchs. They really weren't educated enough to know better, and if they stayed Catholic, they died.
The reasons for the Reformation were not doctrinal, they were political. The doctrine was used to justify the split; it was not the reason for it. The Prince of Germany did not want to owe allegiance to the Pope, who was a temporal ruler who essentially controlled all of Europe at the time. When Luther (rightfully) protested conditions in the Church, German authorities encouraged him to go farther and eventually convinced him to split from Rome. Zwingli and Calvin were soon to follow, as was Henry VIII. Henry didn't use doctrine at all; he just made the bishops swear allegiance to him as head of the church.
But once the authority of the Church was gone, the splits continued, and they continue today.
So don't look to the differences in doctrine to explain the schism. Look to the schism to explain the differences in doctrine.
|
|
|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 273 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 02:00 pm |
|
I don't think it is complicated at all, although some may want to philosophize about the reasons.
David had it right in a posting above, and Rick said the same thing:
What's the best way to separate from the Catholic Church? Answer: Deny the basic tenet of the faith. That is the reason why transubstantiation is denied, even though it was the belief of the Church for 1500 years.
Luther and Calvin used this denial as a way to sever their ties to what they saw as corruption. Elizabeth I used it to hold onto the throne of England against the claims of Mary Queen of Scots. Then it becomes doctrine to the faithful followers down through the generations.
God Bless.
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
GordonH
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Gordon | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Born Presbyterian, later Baptist with charismatic leanings. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 09:12 am |
|
Here is the Presbyterian position on this in case you are interested:
http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapxxvi-xxx.htm
Zwingli went further of course and said there was no associated grace.
Strangely he also had anabaptists drowned as he beleived this was a fitting punishment, yet the modern day baptists are the main truly Zwinglian group.
Calvin also got up to all sorts of ungodly things, which makes the usual comments from protestants about the spanish inquisition very hypocritical in my opinion.
|
|
|
Current time is 07:11 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
